Did a quick shifty on the site and have found no reference to Dean Clifford and Trusts. I have been blown away Dean's simplistic explanations, and would like to know if anyone else is looking into this.

I have started this thread in the 'Trust' section as Dean's whole approach centres on the Birth Certificate as a Trust, but it could be relevant in a number of areas, so feel free to move it.

I am convinced that keeping it simple is the Key and over-complication is the dis-info, after all, it should always be the Common Law for the Common Man & not a complicated voodoo hoop jumping exercise

i like what dean says about the crown, but whats up with the PERSON being sovereign?that line does not make sense with the acts and statutes and how the PERSON gets treated in court,my research shows the opposite,

Dean points out that the Person is in their eyes the trustee and responsible for orders and actions on the account, he further points out that you should remove that presumption from the court and inform them that you are the administrator, not the judge

Men fight for liberty, and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.And their grandchildren are once more slaves.

retlaw wrote:i like what dean says about the crown, but whats up with the PERSON being sovereign?that line does not make sense with the acts and statutes and how the PERSON gets treated in court,my research shows the opposite,

Hi retlaw, I think this comes from Max Igan's research on the word 'Sovereign' meaning 'perfect slave' or something along those lines. He got it from 2 trust researcher friends of his, so I couldn't give a reference to it.

Exactly pedawson, the simplicity is brilliant, and the more you listen to it the more cemented it becomes.I'm just listening to a 4 hour 'talkshoe' of Q & A that is brilliant, tackles everything from losing your kids to settling the mortgage (next on my list!). Trouble is it takes eight hours to get through it because of all the notes to take

I listened to first 30 mins.. And I gotta say I do not think hes right at all when he talks about the relationship between the Monarch, the crown and the City of London or any of it.. I think hes put 2+2 together and got 5..

http://www.thebigwakeup.co.uk - My own personal site dedicated to helping newbies wake up and see the bigger picture.Feel free to pass comment, point out my failings & or generally critisice - (It's a working progress)

here too is a good source for information based on what Dean Cliiford is also teaching,the chap likes to call himself the spaniard and he does run workshops so if any of you are interested in this stuff i hope this will help.

Karl:J wrote:Dean points out that the Person is in their eyes the trustee and responsible for orders and actions on the account, he further points out that you should remove that presumption from the court and inform them that you are the administrator, not the judge

yes, my point exactly, "trustee" is what prisoners are called in those old hollywood movies,

FreemanG wrote:

retlaw wrote:i like what dean says about the crown, but whats up with the PERSON being sovereign?that line does not make sense with the acts and statutes and how the PERSON gets treated in court,my research shows the opposite,

Hi retlaw, I think this comes from Max Igan's research on the word 'Sovereign' meaning 'perfect slave' or something along those lines. He got it from 2 trust researcher friends of his, so I couldn't give a reference to it.

i would imagine that if you capitalize the first letter then you would get a different meaning of the word,just like everything else,

sovereign late 13c., from O.Fr. soverain, from V.L. *superanus "chief, principal," from L. super "over" (see super-). Spelling influenced by folk-etymology association with reign. Milton spelled it sovran, as though from It. sovrano. Meaning "gold coin worth 22s 6d" first recorded late 15c.; value changed 1817 to 1 pound. As an adj., attested from early 14c.; of remedies or medicines, "potent in a high degree," from late 14c.

retlaw wrote:i would imagine that if you capitalize the first letter then you would get a different meaning of the word,just like everything else,

That's very true. Here is a quote I found somewhere (says it's from Black's, but not sure)

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Black's Law Dic 4th Ed.)“Meaning a maximum loss of status due to CAPITALISATION. The highest and most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when man's status changed from one of FREEDOM to one of BONDAGE. When he became a slave. It Swept away with it all rights of Citizenship and all Family Rights”